I'm at work so I can't go in full detail on how asinine your arguments are but naming slush parker/Eric snow to make your point that fisher was average is horribly flawed. Those are below replacement level players. Just because fisher is better than them doesn't mean he's average, at all.
It'd be like me saying Mark Sanchez is average because he's not Ryan Leaf.
PER is 100% tangible. Its all number driven
Its not perfect by any means but its referenced, used, and long standing for a reason. It has its flaws; it is only for valuating offense (defensive metrics, like in baseball, have lagged far behind offensive metrics but strides are being made) and it favors certain types of players. But Fisher is a minus defensive player so his PER is reflective of his ability. What's funny is you're using intangibles (made a big shot, type of system he was in, etc) and saying PER is too intangible. Do you know what PER is? Do you know what intangible means?
Also, you said he was better than 10 pgs of his era (a claim that may or may not be correct). Which would make him...below average.
Just get it together. Critical thinking isn't your strong suit.
|